Inherent Distinctiveness of Post Office’s Trade-marks Bars Registration to Wagon Post Ltd.
INHERENTDISTINCTIVENESSOFPOSTOFFICE’STRADE-MARKSBARS
REGISTRATIONTOWAGONPOSTLTD.
by
BarryGamache
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:(514)9876242-Fax:(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com
ArecentdecisionhandeddownbytheTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourtof
Canadahasindicatedthatbroaderprotectionmaybeaccordedtothe
trade-marksownedbyCanadaPostCorporationinoppositionproceedings
(CanadaPostCorporationvs.WelcomeWagonLtd.andtheRegistrarof
Trade-Marks,T-797-96,June13,1997,Jerome,A.C.J.).Mr.JusticeJerome’s
rulingconcernedanappealbroughtagainstadecisionoftheRegistrarof
Trade-MarkswhichhadrejectedtheoppositionfiledbyCanadaPost
Corporationagainstthetrade-markapplicationsubmittedbyWelcome
WagonLtd.forthetrade-markWAGONPOSTLTD.
OnNovember23,1989,WelcomeWagonLtd.fileditsapplicationtoregister
thetrade-markWAGONPOSTLTD.inassociationwith”advertisingdistribution
services,namely,theassemblyanddistributionofcommercialadvertising
andpromotionalandeducationalmaterials”onthebasisofuseofthetrade-
markinCanadasinceJuly1987.OnSeptember28,1990,CanadaPost
CorporationfiledastatementofoppositionagainstWelcomeWagonLtd.’s
application.
UndertheCanadaPostCorporationAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-10,theopponentis
grantedthesoleandexclusiveprivilegeofcollecting,transmittingand
deliveringletterstotheaddresseethereofwithinCanada.Itsdeclared
objectivesaretoestablishandoperateapostalserviceforthecollection,
transmissionanddeliveryofmessages,information,fundsandgoodsboth
withinCanadaandbetweenCanadaandplacesoutsideCanada.
Moreover,theCanadaPostCorporationActprovidesthatanyperson
commitsanoffensewho,withoutthewrittenconsentoftheopponent,places
orpermitsorcausestobeplacedortoremainonhispremisesthewords
“POSTOFFICE”,oranyotherwordormarkssuggestingthatsuchpremisesare
apostofficeoraplaceforthereceiptofletters.Initsstatementofopposition,
CanadaPostCorporationallegedthatWelcomeWagonLtd.’strade-mark
WAGONPOSTLTD.wasnotregistrablesinceitwasconfusingwithanumberof
theopponent’sownregisteredtrade-marks.InadecisionrenderedFebruary
7,1996,theTrade-MarksOppositionBoardrejectedCanadaPost
Corporation’soppositiononthegroundsthatthelatterhadfailedtoadduce
sufficientevidenceinsupportofitsgroundsagainstWelcomeWagonLtd.
Onappeal,Mr.JusticeJeromereviewedtheBoard’sdecisionandconsidered
theevidenceandsubmissionsofthepartiesandconcludedthattheappeal
shouldbeallowed:extensiveuseoftheopponent’sfamilyoftrade-mark
weighconsiderablyinitsfavour.Thus,thewidespreadandlongtimeuseof
“POST”marksincludingthetrade-marksCANADAPOST,POSTOFFICE,
INTELPOST,MEDIAPOSTE,MAILPOSTE&DESIGN,POSTEMAIL&DESIGN,
PRIORITYPOST,POSTESPRIORITAIRES,PRIORITYPOSTCOURIER,TELEPOST,
ENVOYPOST,OMNIPOST,POSTEMAIL&DESIGN,TELEPOST,POSTE-LETTREand
PRIORITYPOST-POSTESPRIORITAIRESwereelementswhichbroughttheCourt
tosidewiththeopponent.
Furthermore,theCourtevaluatedthepublic’sperceptionoftheapplicant’s
trade-markWAGONPOSTLTD.:Mr.JusticeJeromeconsideredthatthepublic,
uponseeingthistrade-markwhichincorporatesthewordPOSTandwhich
wastobeusedinassociationwithpostalrelatedservices,wouldassumethat
thetrade-markhadsomeconnectionwithCanadaPostCorporation.Asan
additionalcircumstance,Mr.JusticeJeromeconsideredthesingleidea
suggestedbyallofCanadaPostCorporation’strade-
marksandaccordinglyconcludedthatbroaderprotectionshouldbe
accordedtosame.
Finally,Mr.JusticeJeromeconsideredtheextraordinarilyspecialstatus
conferredbyParliamentupontheopponentandreliedonthedecisionof
CanadaPostCorp.v.RegistrarofTradeMarksetal.(1991),40C.P.R.(3d)221
(F.C.T.D.,Muldoon,J.).Inthatdecision,theCourtrecognizedtheopponent’s
noteworthystatusanditsmonopolyinoppositionproceedingsagainstany
onewhowouldseektobecometheregisteredholderoftrade-markssimilar
to,orevensuggestingthoseofCanadaPostCorporation.Goingabitfurther,
Mr.JusticeJeromefoundthattheinherentdistinctivenessofallthe
opponent’strade-marksresultedinpartfromitsstatutoryrightasexclusive
providerofpostalservicesinCanada.CanadaPostCorporation’sappeal
wasthereforeallowedandtheapplicationforWAGONPOSTLTD.was
consequentlyrejected.
TheCourt’sdecisionisinterestinginthatitconfirmsCanadaPostCorporation’s
uniquestatutorystatuswhichsetsitapartandgrantsitamuchmore
favourablepositionthanthatofordinaryopponentinopposition
proceedings.AnotheractofParliament(theCanadaPostCorporationAct)
hasthereforetheeffectofgrantingCanada’sPostOfficespecialadvantages
andprivilegeswhenopposingathirdpartytrade-markapplicationunderthe
Trade-MarksAct.
Publishedat(1997),11W.I.P.R.263underthetitleCanadaPost’sTrade-Marks
HaveSpecialStatus,CourtRules.